Organised Crime & Crime Prevention - what works? - Scandinavian ...

NSfK´s 40. forskerseminar, Espoo, Finland 1998
manage. Information on both of these is needed if our aim is to act constructively: ideals give
us the aims to struggle for and reality shows us the obstacles we should to be able to remove.
The central values linked to security, like family security and own security, are highly valued
among prisoners and civilians. The prisoners seem to think that the things which are nearer
them or their family, like freedom, health, family security and love, are more important than
those linked with phenomena far removed from their daily life, such as world peace, national
security - or even work - may be. Perhaps the differences here are also linked with the
differences in their life conditions: certain values are more important to people partly because
they might have more to lose if those particular things are or should be threatened.
Traditionally work forms the most significant part of the daily activities in Finnish prisons.
What is the effect on these activities if prisoners generally do not greatly appreciate work -
i.e. the traditional forms of work that are available for them in real life in and outside prison?
What does this mean from the point of view of managing in civilian life? However 39% of the
prisoners said that work is included in a secure life. And there were many other more highly
valued things among them. Perhaps we should think about, how to link the things they
appreciate more with the constructive elements of activities like work; e.g. earning a living
(even partly), having something meaningful to do and finding one's place in society without
committing crimes. What could be the new legal and more constructive ways of selfrealization
during the sentence, the ways that could continue of be useful after release?
It can easily be seen within the answers of the prisoners that their autonomy has been
threatened and limited during their life: for example decreasing freedom and bureaucracy are
among the ten most common causes of insecurity. The threat of marginalization causes them
insecurity in the form of peoples' disregard for one and another, reduction of social and health
services, amount of living expences and cutting unemployment benefits. In comparison with
the samples of civilian men it becomes prominent that in general prisoners feel much
insecurity and to a greater degree in Finnish society. Instead of locking many doors of
survival we should be able to open some more. Our right to take their freedom should
increase our reponsibilty and duties to try to help them to keep their freedom after release.
For the most part it is an extremely good thing to trust oneself in getting out of troubles. But
trusting mostly only in oneself is not such a good thing. If one succeeds, there is only oneself
to thank for it, but if one does not succeed, who is to blaim? Many of the prisoners underline
that "everyone is the master of their own fortune". As a social worker in a Finnish prison I
have met many "lonely riders" who have lost their lands, horses and whatever still remains of
their self-respect in this way. Among the prisoners' it seems to be quite general to trust
friends, companions and family too - the "unofficial" people near them - and less general to
believe in professionals, authorities and prison personnel. But what if there are not so many
friends or family members available or they already have quite a lot of problems of their own?
It is a great challenge for both prisoners and people trying to help them to build a confidential
and functional relationship. But who do you trust and what do you do if you really mostly
believe that coincidence has such a great influence on your future anyway?
It is obvious that the Cognitive Skills Training Program, other programs or any other means
are needed to support peoples' control over their personal life - perhaps also in prison rather
than just outside it. But it is worth remembering that everything in life is not just in our own
hands. Life control is never only a question of individuals. There are always some meaningful
others; community, society and so on, even coincidences, to be somehow taken into account.
167